7 comments:

You can whack Paul Ryan all you want, but if you aren't whacking your side, you are being hypocritical. At least Republicans are trying (ostensibly) to get taxing and spending under control. And I know where this will go...."the (evil) rich and (evil) corporations don't pay their share. That is not the point to anyone but the Left. The point is no matter how much money we hand over to government, they spend even more. What happens when the (evil) rich and (evil) corporations are tapped out? Who pays then?

Yeah, this is now far off topic, but it is germane to my first sentence.

Of course Ryan didn't buy or even know the price of the wine.And the liberal who wrote about it extremely rude and should have been slapped upside the head for interupting a private dinner between friends. Not too mention, she was pretty drunk after drinking 1/2 bottle of wine.Jealousy will get you no where.

I was out of town yesterday and didn't see the Anonymous "FU" comment. I have removed it because it added absolutely nothing to the debate. Dropping f-bombs will not automatically get your comment removed, but if you simply attack another commenter without addressing anything they have said, such a comment has no redeeming value.

Dan, if you're OK with letting Congressmen accept expensive bottles of wine from lobbyists (in violation of House ethics rules), then there is no convincing you that the citizen witness behaved appropriately in confronting Ryan about it. If you do not see that this is a PR nightmare for Ryan, who is preaching austerity measures for the nation's most vulnerable populations, then you will continue to believe it's just sour grapes to point it out. You're entitled to your opinion, but I find your arguments unpersuasive.

Deekaman, I don't agree with your beliefs about government wasting all of our money. I think government does a great many useful things with our tax dollars, and I would like to see them continue. Spouting Ayn Rand ideology is usually just an excuse for using the power of government to maintain white upper-class privilege. The whole tax-the-poor-more meme is disgusting, in my opinion, particularly when advocated by self-described Christians. At least Ayn Rand admitted she was an atheist and hostile to religion. I'm not accusing you personally of Christian hypocrisy; I'm speaking of politicians like Paul Ryan.

Thanks for removing the gratuitous F-U. I know I can expect a pretty good degree of decorum here.

I remain convinced that 1) Ryan had no idea of the cost of the wine and 2) If Conservatives were as unhinged at the "citizen witness" (she's not, she's a Left Wing Blogger), you would find much screaming about the Democrats as well. So for you to whack Ryan without saying the same about your own side is disingenuous.

There are many things the government does with our tax dollars that are "good". That does not mean they are "Constitutional". That some judge has rendered them so does not mean they are. If the Constitution were a "living, breathing document", there would be no need for an amendment process. If you wish government to do your version of "good" with tax dollars, amend the Constitution to make it so.

To allow nearly 50% of the electorate to not pay income tax is a travesty. should they pay as much as millionaires? I can negotiate that part, but to have no financial stake in the government allows for open season on those who do. We are nearly at that point now. "Soak the evil rich". "They don't pay their fair share". Really? First, who decides? Second, when they run out of money, who comes next? You and me.

Of course Ryan had no idea the costs of the wine since he had no intention whatsoever of paying for it until he got caught. Why would "America's accountant" know the cost of dinner anyway? In reality, it goes along with his whole career of a big spender who pretends he is a "fiscal conservative".